Army of Liberty: a Fantasy Revolutionary Warfare Quest

Voting is open for the next 1 day, 2 hours
Ok, but how would I actually do to win the battle? I would retreat to our main position, which is functionally immune against long-ranged fire. If he doesn't give us the battle we desire, we don't give him his.
Umm, but this defeats the entire point of the forward position and gives up both flanks to him? Would this not mean your plan failed, since you dealt no real damage to him and were forced to retreat to the initial position? This would be giving him exactly what he wants, the opportunity to march up, secure his flanks and start bombarding our position at Medium range.
You have no counterplay against him moving there on T2, Rotholz isn't even set up yet.
Right, you do not intend for them to get in a melee. What happens if they do? Due to Trotha being less risk averse against them or just making a blundering move.
Them ending up in melee would require us to make a mistake, clearly. With Ready Fire, Ready Move as an option and Elven cavalry support for spotting and deterring aggressive enemy actions, I have done all I can to minimize risks for our skirmishers. I also fail to see your point since you are moving the halflings pretty much identically to me, with no cavalry support.

I have outlined countermove against your main plans (put some artillery onto the Sarnscheid to surpress our movement, take a forward position around the stronghold). You have called the first plausible. So, what happens if they do this and half your plan for gaining an advantage against the melee falls apart?

You have no counterplay against him moving there on T2, Rotholz isn't even set up yet.
My answer to you was that I do not consider this a bad outcome. If he splits his forces and sends some to Sarnscheid and some to Rotholz, we get a close-range firefight/brawl at Rotholz, which favors us. This is not a bad outcome.

We can also pressure the Sarnscheid position with our halflings in the West, unless he devotes even more resources to guard that approach. This stretches his forces thinly.
In this case, you are proposing a march through enemy medium artillery fire to reinforce a position of skirmishers, which are there to deal damage so we have the upper hand during melee. I think this idea is backwards, exposing our force to significant damage rather than damaging his. If we forgo the initiative here, there is a decent risk we can flat out never move our own infantry onto the central plain for fear of risk.
What? I do not understand what you are talking about? I am proposing no such thing, the cavalry and horse artillery is already present on the East flank to support in my plan! There is a safe route through the Eastern hills to Rotholz he cannot fire artillery at. Did you get muxed up about West vs East here? To clarify: I intend to defend the East much more than the West, in the West the halflings retreat while firing if met with a serious threat. The geography in the West is such that that flank is no real threat to us, we can always fall back there and defend the hills. In the East is where we should fight harder and longer before retreating.

If we forgo the initiative here, there is a decent risk we can flat out never move our own infantry onto the central plain for fear of risk.
I am completely fine not moving our infantry onto the central plain. My whole idea is to defend the flanks! The central plain is death against an enemy with artillery superiority.

The only scenario in which I would move in the center is the one in which he sends too many forces to take either flank and exposes his center. But that would require a major mistake from him.
 
Last edited:
Umm, but this defeats the entire point of the forward position and gives up both flanks to him? Would this not mean your plan failed, since you dealt no real damage to him and were forced to retreat to the initial position? This would be giving him exactly what he wants, the opportunity to march up, secure his flanks and start bombarding our position at Medium range.
Well, failure is a relative term. We would still get multiple advantages and ambush morale checks on artillery fire against him if we inch back via fire and retreat. Since his units are more vulnerable to breaking, I will consider this a likely small net-gain or at worst a wash. I didn't get what I was aiming for, but he doesn't get a major advantage.
What? I do not understand what you are talking about? I am proposing no such thing, the cavalry and horse artillery is already present on the East flank to support in my plan! There is a safe route through the Eastern hills to Rotholz he cannot fire artillery at. Did you get muxed up about West vs East here? To clarify: I intend to defend the East much more than the West, in the West the halflings retreat while firing if met with a serious threat. The geography in the West is such that that flank is no real threat to us, we can always fall back there and defend the hills. In the East is where we should fight harder and longer before retreating.
We were talking cross purposes. I was talking about the west Kirschenholz, you were talking about the east. So, the base problem with your attempt to win the melee in the east: Trotha can just flatly make more attacks. You have a position of 3 infantry, while he has 10 he can put forward. Your plan to defend the plain approaches via cavalry charges is something I would consider unlikely to work since he can pull a screen of cavalry forward, but putting this aside: At it's most basic, you offer a front of about 4, maybe 5 tiles (stupid nymph mobility) to him to melee from. 4 units going against our three would result in a bloodier, prolonged battle, especially with the nymph rolling with advantage. Your revised plan still puts the 42nd (unsteady, disadvantage on all morale rolls) as one of the units defending them, which likely won't go well with the human disadvantage to neighbours routing.

It's a slow, grinding combat where we would eventually be pushed out from and critically one I don't expect to inflict more casulties on Trotha than we get. Just melee them for an extended period won't deal that much damage, especially if he sends some dwarves to pick on the isolated humans. Your plan of dealing more damage to him is dependant on him sending solely the worst units in his units in his army to melee the fortress.
 
We would still get multiple advantages and ambush morale checks on artillery fire against him if we inch back via fire and retreat.
To be perfectly frank: this tactic is silly and goes against the intent of the ambush check rules. It makes little sense that artillery moving backwards in a straight line in an open field can get multiple Ambushes off on enemies. I am not convinced it will work like you expect, both because enemy scouts on the flanks can ruin this and because it feels like an oversight of the rules.
Trotha can just flatly make more attacks. You have a position of 3 infantry, while he has 10 he can put forward.
He will not send his whole army into Rotholz. Or if he does, so do we, and then we win the melee due to better quality infantry. Also, we can counter-attack. To quote myself:
The only scenario in which I would move in the center is the one in which he sends too many forces to take either flank and exposes his center. But that would require a major mistake from him.
....
Your revised plan still puts the 42nd (unsteady, disadvantage on all morale rolls) as one of the units defending them, which likely won't go well with the human disadvantage to neighbours routing.
It very clearly does not. The 42nd stays behind at the initial position.
[X] Plan: Cover and Concealement
-[X] Cav (Go before others when possible)
-[X] Guillory's Hussars: Move to the hills NW of you, overlooking the Kirchenholz Forest.
-[X] 13th Hob Lanc: Brace
-[X] 108th Elv Hsr: 2*Move [NW, NW, NW, NE, NE| Facing NE], Ready Charge 100m, current facing
-[X] 55th Elv Hsr: 3*Move [E, NE, NE, NW, NW, NW, NW, NE, NW, NE | Facing NW]
-[X] Inf (go in order of list)
-[X] 19th Half Pfd [Rapid -> 4 base movement]: 3* Move [W, 2*NW, NE, NW, NE | Facing NW]
-[X] 16th Half Pfd: 3*Move [NE, 4NW | Facing NE]
-[X] 28th Half Pfd: 3*Move [3 NW, W| Facing NE]
-[X] 200th Hob: 3*Move [NE, E, NE, NE, NE, NE | Facing NW]
-[X] 251st Hob: Move [W, | Facing NW] Brace, Ready Fire (200m)
-[X] 72nd Hum: 3 Move [NE, NE, NE, NE, NE| Facing NE]
-[X] 148th Hum: 3 Move [NE, NE, NE, NE, NE| Facing NE]
-[X] 45th Elv: 2 Mov [W, W, SW| Facing NE], Brace
-[X] 42nd Elv: 3 Mov [W, W, W, W, SW| Facing NE]
-[X] Artillery (go last if possible)
-[X] 31st Elv Art: Ready Fire [Med. Range
-[X] 10th Hum Art: Ready Fire [Med. Range
-[X] 84th Elv Art: Ready Fire [Med. Range
-[X] 5th Hob H. Art.: Move [2 NW, NE, NW | Facing NE] + Setup (Free, NW), Ready Fire [Med. Range; W,NE]
-[X] HQ: Do nothing
 
Would this not mean your plan failed, since you dealt no real damage to him and were forced to retreat to the initial position?
I'm sort of confused by this reasoning. If the end goal of RR's plan is to fight at the Kinzberg, why would falling back be 'the plan failing'? If the artillery moves up so we can take certain medium range shots if the opportunity arises and those shots don't happen, that's-yeah what RR just said, basically a wash.

Largely fine with either plan winning I think (though I still lean towards RR's because I think that there are some Turn 2 outcomes where that forward artillery could really maim von Trotha's cavalry and von T will probably still be moving his own guns up) but I do want to push the 19th all the way forward in the Kirschenholz just for the chance of catching his infantry in the open if they try to move in-

So Pinniped, how would you feel about adding an extra NW to the end of this move order? They have the move for it - the first tile they enter with trees was confirmed to be Plains, not Forest.

-[X] 19th Half Pfd [Rapid -> 4 base movement]: 3* Move [W, 2*NW, NE, NW, NE | Facing NW]
 
I'm sort of confused by this reasoning. If the end goal of RR's plan is to fight at the Kinzberg, why would falling back be 'the plan failing'? If the artillery moves up so we can take certain medium range shots if the opportunity arises and those shots don't happen, that's-yeah what RR just said, basically a wash.
To clarify: both our plans involve an eventual ordered retreat to Kinzberg, the goal is to do significant damage to him before that happens. But we should remember why we would be retreating to Kinzberg early in this outcome: it would be because Von Trotha was firing on us with Long Range artillery. Thus we would be taking damage and Stress, with nothing substantial to show for it. There is also the risk of lucky critical hits from Von Trotha, since even long-range fire can crit.

I summary, I feel like RR's plan accomplishes nothing substantial and may lead to a worse outcome if Von Trotha sees us coming and just turtles up with Long-range artillery. Which is in character for him.
So Pinniped, how would you feel about adding an extra NW to the end of this move order? They have the move for it - the first tile they enter with trees was confirmed to be Plains, not Forest.
Sure, why not.
 
So Pinniped, how would you feel about adding an extra NW to the end of this move order? They have the move for it - the first tile they enter with trees was confirmed to be Plains, not Forest.
Wasn't the one they would be moving onto also confirmed to be plains? If so, placing them in the open is probably a bad idea.
To be perfectly frank: this tactic is silly and goes against the intent of the ambush check rules. It makes little sense that artillery moving backwards in a straight line in an open field can get multiple Ambushes off on enemies. I am not convinced it will work like you expect, both because enemy scouts on the flanks can ruin this and because it feels like an oversight of the rules.
Well, I can't speak to the intent of the rules here. Regardless, my plan involves placing cavalry in a position to block the enemy from viewing our artillery. Units can't see through other units, simple as that.
It very clearly does not. The 42nd stays behind at the initial position.
Edit: Wait, I think the tally lead to the wrong post. Yeah, that's the case. Criticism retracted on that point.
 
Last edited:
This is sort of the core problem with last minute plan that are put forward, you don't have the time to probably check them for the errors.
You are viewing the wrong version of the plan. I posted a new version in a separate post, which is more correct than editing a plan which already has votes in my opinion. The latter can go unnoticed by people who have voted for the old version, which is not all that great.
 
Wasn't the one they would be moving onto also confirmed to be plains? If so, placing them in the open is probably a bad idea.
No, that confirmed Plains tile is the one NW of the tile they end up on. I'm pretty sure this one's forest.


It's just the same change I asked you to make before - though I just noticed it wasn't actually edited in your plan post. Huh. Would you do that?
 
[X] Plan: Cover and Concealement

I don't actually know which I prefer, I'm mostly tying it because it seems there's an ongoing discussion about a potential change to one part of an order, and I don't want it to end while we're still talking about that.

Thus, tying it up to try to give time for that consideration one way or another.
 
No, that confirmed Plains tile is the one NW of the tile they end up on. I'm pretty sure this one's forest.

It's just the same change I asked you to make before - though I just noticed it wasn't actually edited in your plan post. Huh. Would you do that?
Sorry about that, memory issues. I don't think the exact tiles the 19th Half ends up on matters a lot, they are pretty flexible with rapid movement. I think they have about the same value regarding an early ambush shot from there, so I would land on the side of not altering my plan just before the vote was counted. My thinking is with their old position they can also ambush (move, fire, move back) from the hill and have the additional advantage of being able to ambush from the edge of the forest which is decent enough. Is there a strong case for switching their end tile?
 
Sorry about that, memory issues. I don't think the exact tiles the 19th Half ends up on matters a lot, they are pretty flexible with rapid movement. I think they have about the same value regarding an early ambush shot from there, so I would land on the side of not altering my plan just before the vote was counted. My thinking is with their old position they can also ambush (move, fire, move back) from the hill and have the additional advantage of being able to ambush from the edge of the forest which is decent enough. Is there a strong case for switching their end tile?

Okay, by the way, my question is this! Let's say that you are wrong, or rather, let's say that occupying the center turns out to be more costly than you think, whether it's as costly as the other plan says. What's your "recovery position"? Basically, how well do you think your plan would allow recovery or retraction if it turned out that one of your assumptions was wrong?

This isn't some, "Oh yeah, well what if..." so much as basically going, "We're all making assumptions, if your assumption turns out to be wrong, how well can your planned end-step shift more towards the flanks or so on if it turns out you are?"
 
Sorry about that, memory issues. I don't think the exact tiles the 19th Half ends up on matters a lot, they are pretty flexible with rapid movement. I think they have about the same value regarding an early ambush shot from there, so I would land on the side of not altering my plan just before the vote was counted. My thinking is with their old position they can also ambush (move, fire, move back) from the hill and have the additional advantage of being able to ambush from the edge of the forest which is decent enough. Is there a strong case for switching their end tile?
Basically my reasoning is:

if von T is moving infantry into the Kirschenholz (possible, but not guaranteed) it's a better tile to be on. If he's moving there as fast as he can blocking that tile is critical because he can just barely get infantry into it on T2, and that'd force our halflings to fight an even fight in forest instead of an uneven forest v plains. If they're getting there slower, being in the edge of the forest already means an extra Ready Fire/Fire next turn.

If von T isn't moving infantry into the Kholz it's identical to the other move. Thus-all upside, no downside.

As for editing before the vote closes - I mean in principle I see the concern yeah but I am definitely the only person in the thread who cares about this move :V
 
Last edited:
Hmm, to everyone reading the thread who have not voted yet, I encourage you to vote. This is actually an important vote since we currently have two very different competing plans. We are not arguing over minor details this time but over the entire plan for the initial stages of the battle.

To clarify, I am not asking people to vote for my plan, but to vote for a plan. This is a vote with significant consequences for the battle and it thus would feel better if everyone gets their vote here. I would much rather lose this vote by five votes than barely lose by one vote.
 
[X] Plan: Preparing A Firing Retreat
I like this as it increase forward our anchor and I wanted to see how a anchor of Artillery work with this more mobile ruleset.
 
Okay, by the way, my question is this! Let's say that you are wrong, or rather, let's say that occupying the center turns out to be more costly than you think, whether it's as costly as the other plan says. What's your "recovery position"? Basically, how well do you think your plan would allow recovery or retraction if it turned out that one of your assumptions was wrong?

This isn't some, "Oh yeah, well what if..." so much as basically going, "We're all making assumptions, if your assumption turns out to be wrong, how well can your planned end-step shift more towards the flanks or so on if it turns out you are?"
The centre in general: My plan can move back over 2 turns from any point in time. Less if we inch a bit backwards on a turn beforehand.
 
Basically my reasoning is:

if von T is moving infantry into the Kirschenholz (possible, but not guaranteed) it's a better tile to be on. If he's moving there as fast as he can blocking that tile is critical because he can just barely get infantry into it on T2, and that'd force our halflings to fight an even fight in forest instead of an uneven forest v plains. If they're getting there slower, being in the edge of the forest already means an extra Ready Fire/Fire next turn.

If von T isn't moving infantry into the Kholz it's identical to the other move. Thus-all upside, no downside.

As for editing before the vote closes - I mean in principle I see the concern yeah but I am definitely the only person in the thread who cares about this move :V

I like this suggestion, I'd switch to RR's plan if this was changed.
 
Vote closed New
Scheduled vote count started by Photomajig on Jan 19, 2025 at 8:15 AM, finished with 80 posts and 9 votes.

  • [X] Plan: Preparing A Firing Retreat
    -[X] Visualization
    -[X] Cav (Go before others when possible)
    -[X] Guillory's Hussars: Move towards Rotholz Turm, Ready move onto Rotholz Turm , Ready Move SE Hill Facing NE IF Rotholz Turm is empty [AN: Allied Units, should be given semantic rather than specific orders], Ready Brace
    -[X] 13th Hob Lanc: Move [4 NW, 1 NE| Facing NW] , Ready Charge If any non-square, non-braced formation enemy stays in flat tile in 500m away, Ready Move Disengage south towards original position
    -[X] 108th Elv Hsr: Move [2 NW, 2W| Facing NW] Ready Charge If any non-square, non-braced formation enemy stays in flat tile 600m away & prior true, Ready Move Disengage south towards original position
    -[X] 55th Elv Hsr: Move [NW, 2*NE, 3 NW | Facing NW] Ready Charge If any non-square, non-braced formation enemy stays in flat tile 600m away & prior true, Ready Move Disengage south towards original position
    -[X] Inf (go in order of list)
    -[X] 19th Half Pfd [Rapid -> 4 base movement]: 3* Move [W, 2*NW, NE, NW, NE]
    -[X] 16th Half Pfd: 3*Move [NE, 3NW | Facing NE]
    -[X] 28th Half Pfd: 3*Move [3 NW, W| Facing NE]
    -[X] 200th Hob: Move [2 NW], 2*Hide
    -[X] 251st Hob: Move [2 NW], 2*Hide
    -[X] 72nd Hum: 3*Move [NE, 3*NW| Facing NW]
    -[X] 148th Hum: 3 Move [NE, 3* NW, NE| Facing NW]
    -[X] 45th Elv: 3 Mov [3 NE, NW| Facing NE]
    -[X] 42nd Elv: 3 Mov [3 NW]
    -[X] Artillery (go last if possible)
    -[X] 31st Elv Art: 3* Move [NE,NW,W Facing NE]
    -[X] 10th Hum Art: 2* Move [2 NW], Set Up [Facing NW]
    -[X] 84th Elv Art: 2* Move [2 NW], Set Up [Facing NW]
    -[X] 5th Hob H. Art.: Move [2 NW, 2 W] + Setup (Free, NW), Ready Fire [Med. Range; W,NE]
    -[X] HQ: 3*Move (2 NW)
    [X] Plan: Cover and Concealement
    -[X] Cav (Go before others when possible)
    -[X] Guillory's Hussars: Move to the hills NW of you, overlooking the Kirchenholz Forest.
    -[X] 13th Hob Lanc: Brace
    -[X] 108th Elv Hsr: 2*Move [NW, NW, NW, NE, NE| Facing NE], Ready Charge 100m, current facing
    -[X] 55th Elv Hsr: 3*Move [E, NE, NE, NW, NW, NW, NW, NE, NW, NE | Facing NW]
    -[X] Inf (go in order of list)
    -[X] 19th Half Pfd [Rapid -> 4 base movement]: 3* Move [W, 2*NW, NE, NW, NE]
    -[X] 16th Half Pfd: 3*Move [NE, 3NW | Facing NE]
    -[X] 28th Half Pfd: 3*Move [3 NW, W| Facing NE]
    -[X] 200th Hob: 3*Move [NE, E, NE, NE, NE, NE | Facing NW]
    -[X] 251st Hob: Move [W, | Facing NW] Brace, Ready Fire (200m)
    -[X] 72nd Hum: 3*Move [NE, 3*NW| Facing NW]
    -[X] 148th Hum: 3 Move [NE, 3* NW, NE| Facing NW]
    -[X] 45th Elv: 2 Mov [W, W, SW| Facing NE], Brace
    -[X] 42nd Elv: 3 Mov [3 NW]
    -[X] Artillery (go last if possible)
    -[X] 31st Elv Art: Ready Fire [Med. Range
    -[X] 10th Hum Art: Ready Fire [Med. Range
    -[X] 84th Elv Art: Ready Fire [Med. Range
    -[X] 5th Hob H. Art.: Move [2 NW, 2 W] + Setup (Free, NW), Ready Fire [Med. Range; W,NE]
    -[X] HQ: Do nothing
 
Wait, im confused, von T had the first turn, do we just not think that he would realise that triple move cant be punished? Cause Im pretty sure he has infantry in charging range of cavalry no?

Either way, im glad our tradition of killing a few cavalry elves in the opening of the battle continues unchanged
 
Wait, im confused, von T had the first turn, do we just not think that he would realise that triple move cant be punished? Cause Im pretty sure he has infantry in charging range of cavalry no?

Either way, im glad our tradition of killing a few cavalry elves in the opening of the battle continues unchanged
See, I'm not sure where you get it can't be punished. Cavalry has a much higher movement due to the AP system, meaning just moving forward runs into the issue of potential hit and run charges by our own cavalry. He's operating blind on his first turn and doesn't see our position, meaning he would be taking a decent bit of damage if we start with a more aggressive positioning. For this reason, I think triple moving your infantry on the first turn is unlikely.
 
Cavalry has a much higher movement due to the AP system, meaning just moving forward runs into the issue of potential hit and run charges by our own cavalry. He's operating blind on his first turn and doesn't see our position
We are also operating blind, how could we launch cavalry charges onto Units we cannot see? As long as he stays about 7 hexes outside our deployment zone, he can safely triple move on T1.
 
See, I'm not sure where you get it can't be punished. Cavalry has a much higher movement due to the AP system, meaning just moving forward runs into the issue of potential hit and run charges by our own cavalry. He's operating blind on his first turn and doesn't see our position, meaning he would be taking a decent bit of damage if we start with a more aggressive positioning. For this reason, I think triple moving your infantry on the first turn is unlikely.

I mean, we don't currently see his units, so we aren't doing hit and run charges and after our turn he has his full turn to deal with defending against charges.

(The ready charges happen during his turn, if he reads us correctly he could do brace, attack, shoot and ruin our cavalry, though I don't think he's that good)

But cavalry reading an action sitting in front of artillery doesn't have the many options
 
Last edited:
I mean, we don't currently see his units, so we aren't doing hit and run charges and after our turn he has his full turn to deal with defending against charges
Yeah, but he doesn't know we can't see him before he gives his orders. The battlefield distance during the start means the attacker almost always operates blind. Based on what we knows we could choose an aggressive set-up (something he seems to expect based on placing the bait before the battle), meaning in this case his units would get discovered by the end of the turn. Our current set-up doesn't permit it, but he has to play against the totality of possible opening moves. And the possibility that "The Arné hob will stay in a backwards, defensive position" is probably not something safe enough he would take risks on.
 
Last edited:
Voting is open for the next 1 day, 2 hours
Back
Top